I love how Trump keeps the liberals squirming over this. I am curious how they go to any length to defend Barack but fight the one thing that would put the question to rest. What's he hding? What are they afraid of?

You have nailed the crux of the game. Keep up the doubt. Just like the liberals did to W with his military service records. Of course, to the birthers' credit, we haven't seen any forged documents about Obama.

I wish the article on wolves had stated whether the population had reached the de-listing target specified in the recovery plan for the wolf. That's important.

...environmental groups said it set an unnerving precedent by letting Congress, rather than a science-based federal agency, remove endangered species protections.

It's the "science-based" USFWS that proposed downgrading the endangered status of the Western Gray Wolf -- they had a target in their original recovery plan. But they have been sued by the pro-wolf people, mostly some environmentalists and animal rights activists.

I think wolves are swell but when activists keep moving the recovery goal posts, it cheapens the entire process and ultimately increases political resistance to listing new species in the future.

Interesting article. Note that they claim that Social Security numbers are assigned based on wher you are born, which is a lie.

It's just amazing to me how many "facts" people will just make up: SSNs assigned to people based on where they are born. Sekrit "long form" birth certificates are the only REAL form of birth certificate, even though no government agency accepts them for any purpose.

My challenge to the birthers stands: find a court case or a government agency that has said that a "Certificate of Live Birth" is not good enough to establish citizenship and a sekrit "long form" is the only acceptable one.

So far Ut has totally failed that challenge and I predict that any one else who insists on the "long form" will fail it as well.

I love wolves as much as the next guy. But I also have a friend who lives part of the year an hour or two south of the border in Idaho (and the rest of the time in Spokane, and hour's drive from there).

He claims that the gray wolves "reintroduced" were bigger and run in bigger packs than those hunted out. And as a result, they bring down bigger game, and have been more successful, esp. without other apex predators around.

I remain unconvinced - the Dire Wolf went extinct about the same time that all those large land mammals did, and, coincidently when man first came to the continent on a permanent basis. And, the theory is that the gray wolves survived, while the dire wolves did not, because the later were too big and hunted in too big of packs, to survive without all those large mammals. In the long run, if the gray wolves are too big, etc., for their prey, they will cease to thrive.

Isn't that one of the statements for which there is no actual evidence?

If contemporaneous news items placed by the state government aren't evidence, then what would be evidence?

That's the reason why birthers are ridiculed. There is no evidence whatever they will accept.

If Obama could somehow legally obtain his sekrit "long form" certificate, which no government agency requires or accepts as proof of citizenship and which most citizens have never even SEEN, and then personally mail it to every birther in turn, they would just say it was a forgery.

The conspiracy they already believe in requires the complicity of the State of Hawaii and a time machine.

It's just amazing to me how many "facts" people will just make up: SSNs assigned to people based on where they are born.

My understanding is that they are assigned by the area where you first applied for one, which may or may not be where you were born. Thus, all the male members of my family have 52x numbers, going back to my father, while my mother had a significantly lower number, growing up in Ill.

You need a SS# to get a job, or get claimed on an income tax return, and that is why most of us have them from where we grew up.

So, if he has a Connecticut SS#, it would possibly mean that that was where he first had a job - except I don't know when in his early history he had any interaction with that state.

The two different addresses is interesting. Yesterday when I was looking at the HI long form, I wondered if maybe that wasn't the problem. There is a spot for both the father's and mother's addresses. They could both be filled in. Of course, there is no marriage on record and Obama's mother left for Washington right away. So two different addresses would make sense.

I don't think there's anything on the long form to indicate whether the parents are married, so the "Mr and Mrs Barack Obama" could have been an assumption on the part of the newspapers that printed the announcement.

I discussed the SSN issue on another thread: SSA says that the area number USUALLY has to do with where you applied, but not always. Area numbers are obsolete and nowadays are assigned at the convenience of SSA.

Growing up in Washington everyone's SSN started with 5 except mine, because I had been living in Illinois when my mother got our SSNs. So I learned this early.

Likewise, being adopted, I learned early that the birth certificates of adopted children have their adoptive parents on them; whatever the "original" may have said, it is legally invalid and it is illegal even for me to access it.

That's the reason why birthers are ridiculed. There is no evidence whatever they will accept.

Not sure how accurate your information on birth certificates is - your SS# information, while literally true, is also quite misleading. Your birth certificate info conflicts with my personal experiences, but I have a sample size of just a few.

I'm not posting my birth certificate for you to see, or records of my adoption.

Here's some sources for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_adoption

The infant is then issued a second, amended birth certificate that states the adopting parents are the actual parents. This becomes the adopted person's permanent, legal birth certificate. In the post WWII era laws were enacted which prevented both the adoptee and adoptive family to access the original, and the information given to them can be quite limited (though this has varied somewhat over the years, and from one agency to another). Over time, the laws were reinterpreted or rewritten to seal the information even from the involved parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate

Most hospitals in the U.S. issue a souvenir birth certificate which typically includes the footprints of the newborn. However, these birth certificates are not legally accepted as proof of age or citizenship, and are frequently rejected by the Bureau of Consular Affairs during passport applications. In the United States and Canada, when a person is legally adopted, the government will seal the original birth certificate, and will issue a replacement birth certificate noting the information of the adoptive parents, and the adoptive names of the child. In those cases, adopted individuals are not granted access to their own original birth certificates upon request. Laws vary depending on state or province. Some places allow adopted people unrestricted access to their own original birth certificates, whereas in others the certificate is available only if the biological parents have given their permission. Other places do not allow adopted people access to their own original birth certificates under any circumstances.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.

Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

I discussed the SSN issue on another thread: SSA says that the area number USUALLY has to do with where you applied, but not always. Area numbers are obsolete and nowadays are assigned at the convenience of SSA.

Except that presumably the SS# was not issued "nowadays", but rather, at a time when you went down to your local SS office and applied for one.

Growing up in Washington everyone's SSN started with 5 except mine, because I had been living in Illinois when my mother got our SSNs. So I learned this early.

None of which rebuts my point. Back then, you typically got the SS# of the area where you were when you first needed one.

My next two brothers and I got ours at the same time, and are thus in order. Which is fine for my remembering theirs, until the time when I worked the same place as one of them, and the teller at the credit union gave me his (much larger) balance when she mis-keyed the last digit (and, not surprisingly, our mother's maiden name was also the same).

I do know that at least as late as 15-20 years ago, they seemed to still be mostly issuing local SS#s - almost all of my kid's friends have 52x SS#s too.

But, if he got his SS# more recently than that, there might be other issues...

If Obama could somehow legally obtain his sekrit "long form" certificate, which no government agency requires or accepts as proof of citizenship and which most citizens have never even SEEN, and then personally mail it to every birther in turn, they would just say it was a forgery.

You know, that's your assumption. It isn't a fact. It would certainly take that argument away from them.

Of course Obama doesn't have to release it, but the argument that he isn't releasing it *because* birthers wouldn't believe it anyway seems a nonstarter.

Here's what I believe: Obama has been as nasty a political fighter as there has been. He got two opponents divorce records unsealed. If he had an opponent with a weakness like this, he'd be all over it.

Gabriel - This is one place where Wikipedia is not even suggestive, and is clearly not definitive. It is a highly political issue, and any result there is the result of an edit war, that are almost always won by the left, given the biases of the higher levels at that organization.

Nobody in their right mind accepts Wikipedia in such situations as being definitive or correct. It may be, but is likely just the result of the politics.

(p.s. I have had this discussion with a friend who recently left as their general counsel, and his point was that it is a good starting point for research, and that it should never be relied upon).

Obama Sr. was already married to another woman when he "married" Stanley Ann Dunham, so their marriage wasn't valid.

Because Obama's marriage was in Kneya and may not have been lengal, and when he married Dunham how was anyone supposed to check to see if he had some kind of marriage in Kenya? It was a lot harder to check records in 1962. She was married in the US to what the US considered a legal marriage and she had to get a legal divorce to get out of it.

And bigamy is grounds for divorce ANYWAY. Just because your husband is already married doesn't mean that your marriage is invalid; that's another law birthers made up.

How does one get divorced if one has not first been married? The birther time machine strikes again...

You know, why don't you drop your snide approach?

There is no birther time machine. There is no record of the marriage. Obama was already married. Who knows why she would file for divorce if she wasn't really married. Maybe to make sure he had no claim on her child. Maybe for the sake of appearance for her new boyfriend. Maybe she had lied to her parents about being married and didn't dare tell them when they helped her file divorce papers.

Who knows? All I know is there is no record of their marriage, as of right now.

And Gabriel? My certificate of live birth says that my mother's first name is "Najice". All these years I thought it was "Janice". So I looked at my original long-form birth certificate (the one that says my parents were married, that my race is "white", and has my dear little baby footprints on it) and it says that my mother's first name is Janice, just as I had thought all of these years.But the short form, being an official government issued document, can't possibly be wrong now, can it?

I assume he is a citizen, but at this point the potential drama alone of it turning out otherwise is something I want to see. To see people have to swallow all the insults at those just asking for proof. Of course, it would be said that it doesn't matter, but the effect that it would have on discourse and the idea of accepted or "proven" fact would be delicious. From then on when people wanted to make the point that you don't really know if something is true, they would say: "Well, I'm kind of a birther on that."

Once again. I don't know about Hawaii, but in California and Missouri, the two States in which I have had to obtain Birth Certificiates, there is a distinct difference between a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) and an OFFICIAL Birth Certificate (OBC).

The first COLB is not accepted for any legal purpose and is issued by the hospital at your request or not. The second the OBC is an offical document filed at the County Offices and requires a County Seal to be officially accepted. Either embossed or inked. You have to pay for the copy.

As to the SSN problemo. Again, I don't know when they changed the rules, but in the late 70's when my daughter was born in California, you had to register your child for a SSN BEFORE you left the hospital. Therefore all children born in California would have SSNs that were beginning with the same digits and would be somewhat seququential.

As a former Bank Officer and person who routinely had to verify identity and SSNs I know for the older customers the SSN was based on where they registered first to go to work.

So IF Obama's date of birth fell in the Pre mandatory registration at birth, he might well have a SSN from anyplace in the US where he had a job. (However, since it seems he never worked or lived in Conneticutt, that is problematic).

A birth announcement in the local paper means nothing either. I can announce the birth of my grandchild in my local paper, however it is not any sort of proof that he was born in my town or even my State.

The whole idiot controversy could so easily be solved by Obama being forthcoming with information that we ALL have to provide to get a passport or ANY government job.

The fact that is doesn't want to and is fighting tooth and nail not to, just raises suspicions.

There must be something embarassing.

Just show the damned thing so we can concentrate on more important issues.

Of course Obama doesn't have to release it, but the argument that he isn't releasing it *because* birthers wouldn't believe it anyway seems a nonstarter.

What is going to be interesting this time around is that states are starting to require that Presidential candidates supply (real) birth certificates in order to gain that state's electoral votes. This should prove highly entertaining as we near the 2012 elections. What happens if he can't get on the ballot (or, more accurately, his electors cannot) in, say, Ohio and Florida? Sure, his Justice Department, under the much besmirched Eric Holder, could sue. But what is that going to look like? Business as usual in the most tainted Justice Department of our lifetimes?

He claims that the gray wolves "reintroduced" were bigger and run in bigger packs than those hunted out. And as a result, they bring down bigger game, and have been more successful, esp. without other apex predators around.

It doesn't make sense for wolves to be both larger and run in larger packs. The wolves in the West now were brought from British Columbia or migrated naturally from BC and Alberta.

So IF Obama's date of birth fell in the Pre mandatory registration at birth,

SSA does not mandate registration at birth.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html

Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. But, it is a good idea to get a number when your child is born. You can apply for a Social Security number for your baby when you apply for your baby’s birth certificate. The state agency that issues birth certificates will share your child’s information with us and we will mail the Social Security card to you.

And then you went on to say:

So IF Obama's date of birth fell in the Pre mandatory registration at birth, he might well have a SSN from anyplace in the US where he had a job. (However, since it seems he never worked or lived in Conneticutt, that is problematic).

But I already cited SSA--the area number MAY have something to do with where you work or live, but in many cases it does not.

A birth announcement in the local paper means nothing either.

By itself, no. But that's not the only piece of evidence that confirms that Barack Obama was born in HI.

I think the question of whether or not his parents were ever legally married is irrelevant. His mother was American, and so I have always assumed that regardless of where he was born, he had American citizenship.

The problem is the added requirement for his job that he be a natural born citizen, whatever that means.

The problem is the added requirement for his job that he be a natural born citizen, whatever that means.

Everyone thought they knew what it meant before 2008. An American citzen at birth is a "natural born citizen", that is how the law has been applied anyway. Some legislation making it explicit couldn't hurt.

I think the question of whether or not his parents were ever legally married is irrelevant. His mother was American, and so I have always assumed that regardless of where he was born, he had American citizenship.

Oh, I think it's irrelevant to his citizenship, too. I have no problem believing Obama is a citizen and eligible to be president.I'm interested in why he doesn't release his long form, and my guess is there's something that embarrasses him. That's why I wonder about his parent's marriage.

As I said, Obama the opponent would be all over this. He's been nasty to others.

Gabriel - the problem with your theories and facts is that while they do not absolutely disprove the contrary position, they are highly suggestive.

Sure, for someone born when he was born, there is a small possibility that he could have gotten a Connecticut SS# in the normal course of events. But it would have been highly unlikely. Maybe more likely if it happened now, but we are likely talking at least 40 years ago.

Think of it this way - given his age and purported history, he most likely, probably at at least a 95% level, should have had a Hawaiian SS#. So you are arguing that since there is a 5% chance that a Connecticut SS# was issued instead for completely legitimate reasons, that this refutes that something untoward was going on and that there are problems with his documentation of his citizenship.

Maybe you are correct. But depending on unlikely events isn't going to satisfy very many who weren't satisfied before.

The whole idiot controversy could so easily be solved by Obama being forthcoming with information that we ALL have to provide to get a passport or ANY government job.

He already did that. He showed the only legal birth certificate that anyone in this country possesses and the only one accepted by the government, as you yourself indicated.

What you want by saying "show the damn thing already" is for him to jump through EXTRA hoops that nobody else had to jump through.

Whatever is in the archives for the state of HI does not belong to Obama and there is no legal means by which he can "release" it. It is illegal for anyone but the people who keep the records to see that document.

This is true in many states, for example I showed that people who were in closed adoptions cannot see their "original" certificate.

Again, this is a standard that has been made up only to apply to Barack Obama, which has no legal justification.

That's simply not the case.Several candidates in the past have been born outside the US to American citizen parents, and there were several articles about John McCain's Panama birth. The consensus (before Obama) was that eventually someone like McCain or George Romney would win and the court cases would commence.

I lived abroad for years, and I can tell you there are all kinds of opinions out there about which citizens are eligible to run for president. US citizens born abroad? Kids born in the US just for citizenship, but who have lived their whole lives in Hong Kong?

That's why I support laws requiring birth certificates in the future, and some clarity on the issue. The world is getting smaller and we might as well decide whether or not we're going to follow the Constitution on these few requirements (and how).

Think of it this way - given his age and purported history, he most likely, probably at at least a 95% level, should have had a Hawaiian SS.

Only if he need to pay taxes would he have needed an SSN. "95%" is a stat you just made up. People did not get SSNs for children routinely until that last twenty years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number

Before 1986, people often did not obtain a Social Security number until the age of about 14, since the numbers were used for income tracking purposes, and those under that age seldom had substantial income. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 required parents to list Social Security numbers for each dependent over the age of 5 for whom the parent wanted to claim a tax deduction. Before this act, parents claiming tax deductions were on the honor system not to lie about the number of children they supported. During the first year, this anti-fraud change resulted in seven million fewer minor dependents being claimed, nearly all of which are believed to have involved either children that never existed, or tax deductions improperly claimed by non-custodial parents.[4] By 1990, the threshold was lowered to 1 year old,[5] and is now required regardless of the child's age. Since then, parents have often applied for Social Security numbers for their children soon after birth; today, it can be done on the application for a birth certificate.

Right, it's Wikipedia, so if it is wrong I am sure you can produce something more authoritative.

Hmm . . . So, Gabriel, you are telling me that my mother's first name is not "janice" as she has been known all of her life, and as it says her name is on her birth certificate, but is instead "Najice" because some clerk made a mistake when hand entering the data from the "souvenir" birth certificate they kept in the Hennepin County government center?If I had known it was just a souvenir I I wouldn't have paid the extra bucks to have the state of MN certify it so I could use it to get a passport.

To clarify: the type of birth certificate you are talking about is issued by states these days, and required in place of the old handwritten kind (or copies of them certified by the state) but it was not always so. It was not so in 1990 and it certainly was not so in 1961.

Everyone thought they knew what it meant before 2008. An American citzen at birth is a "natural born citizen", that is how the law has been applied anyway. Some legislation making it explicit couldn't hurt.

Well, actually no. The definition was always a bit ambiguous, and I was taught in school, so many years ago, just the opposite, that this language was included in order to keep the Britts from taking over, early on, this was included. Of course, I come to find out that civics teachers rarely know as much about this sort of thing as I thought at the time...

I would suggest that you expand your reading a bit, esp. if you believe that there was any legal consensus as to the position you espouse. One place where both political sides of legal arguments and issues are often hashed out is at Volokh.com, and I remember a number of fairly rancorous debates at the time on the issue. (A lot of the other legal blog sites (excluding this one, of course) tend to drown out one side or another, and the result you get is that of the side that yelled the loudest or agreed the most with the blogger).

I'm just relaying my experiences, and probably the experiences of every other new parent. Whether you like it or not.

The hospital basically insisted that you register your child for a SSN and I assume at that point the Hospital was also responsible for registering the child with the appropriate agency, the County in my case.

Perhaps it wasn't officially "mandatory" but they sure made it seem so. In fact, I was told that I must complete those documents before I left the hospital.

The cute litte Certificate of Live Birth, with my daughter's footprints on it, is worth doo squat as an official document. She couldn't even register for Little League without obtaining the Offical...Birth Certificate.

(I guess they were on the lookout for stringers, who were older than they looked in the highly competetive field of girl's softball teams.)

In my experience, unless you were born before this practice, most people had the SSN of the state in which they were born. For people born earlier, LIKE MYSELF, my SSN is issued in the State where I went to work and NOT the State in which I was born.

the type of birth certificate you are talking about is issued by states these days, and required in place of the old handwritten kind (or copies of them certified by the state) but it was not always so. It was not so in 1990 and it certainly was not so in 1961.

My state-issued "short form" birth certificate was accepted long before 1990. My old "handwritten" kind is illegal for me to see, much less show it to anyone, because I was adopted.

I have so far seen no legal evidence of this standard you claim exists.

"What you want by saying "show the damn thing already" is for him to jump through EXTRA hoops that nobody else had to jump through."

Yea, probably too hard for him, and it's not important. I mean, my gardener didn't have to prove it, so why should the President of the United States. He only sends men to their death purely on the basis of trust of the rule of law.

The Obama Government Media has their Certifications of a Live Cover-up being issued as fast as their media fingers can fly. Their carefully created counterfeit citizen, who is now ruling the USA with full Presidential powers, is being threatened by exposure. If Obama is ineligible, then can Obama issue himself a Presidential Pardon...or maybe a Certificate of Live Pardon would be as good?

Can't you read the article Ann linked to? The state of HI placed the contemporaneous announcements. Do the announcements somehow not exist if the hospital isn't mentioned? Or is it proof of conspiracy somehow?

I love this stupid debate. It is such fun. But because I like it and because I tool my birther and non birther friends alike with the debate it does not lessen the impact on Obama. A negative impact in my view. Sure, lefties can cry that the birthers are stupid flyover fools but the more this gets discussed the more normal inquisitive people ask: so why doesn't the White House produce what people are asking to see? What is the big freaking deal? It has gone on long enough that the stupid debate is now reflecting very badly on the president.

The state of Hawaii says that you have to be a person with a legitimate interest to get anyone's birth records. They specifically name siblings as having a legitimate interest. I wonder why Trump doesn't just give one of Obama's Kenyan half brothers a few bucks and a free trip to Hawaii in return for a look at the damn thing?

Whatever is in the archives for the state of HI does not belong to Obama and there is no legal means by which he can "release" it. It is illegal for anyone but the people who keep the records to see that document.

Not true. It is illegal for anyone other than the person who is the person on the birth certificate or the parents listed on the certificate to obtain a copy, which is an offical registered document with the relevant agency (State or County). This is to protect identity of the child from being stolen.

But once I have obtain my own birth certificate or my daughter's birth certificate I can make it into a giant billboard for all to see.

Other agencies, like Little League...even, can demand to 'see' the document, which I must produce.

This is true in many states, for example I showed that people who were in closed adoptions cannot see their "original" certificate.

That is a horse of a different color and has no relevance to the issue at hand.

Adoption and sealed certificates are to protect the privacy of the parents who may not wish to (for whatever reason) have any contact with the adopted child.

Sure, lefties can cry that the birthers are stupid flyover fools but the more this gets discussed the more normal inquisitive people ask: so why doesn't the White House produce what people are asking to see?

Even more nefarious are those scars on Obama's head. Brain surgery? Why won't he just come and tell us what's going on????? It's just normal to be inquisitive about such things.

Ah....I stand corrected. It is illegal for anyone without a "legitimate interest", according to Terry, not just parents and child.

Just the same as in life insurance. You must have a legitimate interest to insure the life of another person. Meaning not just anyone can take out a life insurance on just anyone else. (unless the agent is operating illegally)

What we "birthers" want to see is the long-form "Certificate of Birth" which has the hospital name, doctor's signature, etc. Obama paid millions of dollars in legal fees not to have to show that.

So if you Obama supporters want to argue honestly, you have to admit we have never seen a long-form "Certificate of Birth". All Obama has to do is have it released and the issue goes away. Why aren't you curious about why he paid millions in legal fees not to have to?

Adoption and sealed certificates are to protect the privacy of the parents who may not wish to (for whatever reason) have any contact with the adopted child.

Deal with it.

That's my whole point: the "original" birth certificate is MEANINGLESS, and the case of adopted people PROVES it.

No one demands the sekrit long form birth certificate because it is MEANINGLESS. Adopted people CAN'T EVEN SEE THEIRS. So how can it be legitimately demanded? Why isn't the only one the goverment accepts, the so called "short form", NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

Can't you read the article Ann linked to? The state of HI placed the contemporaneous announcements. Do the announcements somehow not exist if the hospital isn't mentioned? Or is it proof of conspiracy somehow?

You are talking in circles.I pointed out that in what was supposed to be an article about the facts you'll find on the ground in Hawaii, the author slipped in something that is not a fact that's been reported to be found in Hawaii.

I pointed that out, you said it was in the contemporaneous reports. I asked you to point out where it is in the contemporaneous reports, and you come back with.....this.

I'll take that as a "no, the Hospital is not mentioned in the contemporaneous reports".

Nice job on this done by The Donald. I for one can hardly wait to see how Trump remodels our White House...or will it be called the Gold House. Nancy Reagan's new china was nothing. Trump will do it up right.

First, A certificate of live birth, as DBQ says, in not acceptable as ID; only a state-issued birth cert. This, presumably, is the difference between long and short form. I know this from various legal hassles surrounding my mother's death.

Second, SSNs are now issued at birth, but, for Boomers, of which Little Zero is one, as Bruce noted, you had to apply for them. My sister and I did when I was about 8, due to a trust my aunt set up for us. The prefixes were usually area-oriented and most came from the birthplace. There is some question about Zero's since there have been allegations the whole thing was fabricated by the SSA.

Finally, this started when Neal Abercrombie, a brainless Demo who had just been elected Governor of HI, promised to end the birther thing by producing Little Zero's long form and couldn't find it. That's when people who otherwise couldn't have cared less started getting interested. Trump has just jumped on the bandwagon.

The issue of, "What's he hiding?", comes from that.

PS People who think they're being cute speaking in Althouse Hillbillyese with stuff like sekrit or librul generally bore me.

I'll take that as a "no, the Hospital is not mentioned in the contemporaneous reports".

We're fact checking here, right?

Neither is his grandparents' names. Clearly Obama doesn't have grandparents either. HOW DEEP DOES IT GO?

MayBee, why did the state of HI put an announcement in the paper, in the section (Vital Statistics) reserved for the state to do that, for child who wasn't born in Hawaii? What does mentioning, or not mentioning, the hospital--which I never brought up--have to do with whether the state placed that announcement?

This "hospital" nonsense is the typical birther tactic: create doubt by inventing an imaginary standard of evidence.

SSNs are issued numerically based on your state of residence when you get it.Obama's is from Connecticut, last issued to a man who died in Hawaii at the age of 18 or 19. Obama's grandmother, Madeline Dunham, worked at the Honolulu probate office at the time and probably heisted the #.Lets look at the facts:We have a purported Certification of live birth showing an "African" Obama Sr. and an underage white woman A. Dunham as Obama 2's parents, of a birth purported to be in Hi., but that is only based on tesimony of a Hi. resident, per Hi. law (but the media sees no reason to investigate this).

We have a divorce Decree of same Dunham/Obama Sr. showing Obama 2 as their son.

Senario 1):Obama 2 was born in Hi.

By marraige to the Kenyan Obama Sr., A. Dunham's son, Obama 2, is certainly not natural born, since he owed allegiance to Britain, by way of the British Nationality Act of 1948, since his father was a British subject, as Kenya was a colony.CONCLUSION: Obama is ineligible

Senario 2):Obama 2 was born abroad.

If this was true A. Dunham is not of age , by US law at the time, to pass US citizenship to Obama 2. After the divorce, Obama 2's citizenship is further muddied by adoption by marraige to an Indonesian man. This would be the only reason that Madeline found it necessary to heist the Connecticut man's SSN.

What a wicked web we weave, yet the press reports NOTHING. Something Huge this way comes...

We can now better understand the fierce opposition of Obama to states like Arizona actually enforcing Federal immigration law. Because if Obama was born in Kenya, in that year to a young American mother, who did not subsequently meet standards in that law law then governing American citizenship, then Obama is still an illegal alien.

This "hospital" nonsense is the typical birther tactic: create doubt by inventing an imaginary standard of evidence.

You are arguing against something nobody here is saying to avoid saying you were wrong about the name of the hospital being printed contemporaneously.

That would be ok, but you prefaced it by saying "don't believe what birthers tell you". I'm not a birther, and I don't believe what they tell me, but I also know when *other* people are spouting facts that just aren't so.

In Senario 2 Obama 2 is certainly not eligible either, as he may be an illegal alien. What were the circumstances of him surrendering his law licence? Why else would he need a stolen SSN unless he wasn't even a US Citizen, much less a natural born Citizen?Crickets in the media.

The state of HI placed the contemporaneous announcements. Do the announcements somehow not exist if the hospital isn't mentioned? Or is it proof of conspiracy somehow?

(1) The state of Hawaii didn't "place" the announcements. It provided the information to the newspapers.

(2) I looked at both announcements. They don't state the hospital where Barack Jr. was born. But the article in the Atlantic states that he was born at the Kapiolani Medical Center. The author makes it seem like that statement is supported by the evidence he adduced. But it's not. We're just asking what the source of that assertion is.

you were wrong about the name of the hospital being printed contemporaneously.

I never said it was. I said only that there were contemporaneous birth announcements.

No point in lying about what I said, it's posted up there. I never said the hospital was listed--you said it wasn't like it was some kind of gotcha and demanded that I prove the opposite. Which I didn't attempt to do.

If contemporaneous news items placed by the state government aren't evidence, then what would be evidence?

That's all I said about it. And i also showed that none of the OTHER announcments listed the hospital, so what is your point?

Really, aside from Obama not just releasing his long-form, it is the most strident anti-birthers who keep this thing going as much as the birthers.The anti-birthers over argue their case, either by stating facts that aren't facts, or making up things like the thing Obama issued is the only thing it's legal to have.

That's why it won't go away, not racism or sour grapes. I think most people who care, do so because they care about it being right, and legal. They don't want the country they love being made a fool of, which is exactly what happened if they are right.

Second, SSNs are now issued at birth, but, for Boomers, of which Little Zero is one, as Bruce noted, you had to apply for them.

No, SSA does not issue numbers at birth and you have to apply for them. I already cited SSA on that.

Prior to 1986 there was no reason to have an SSN for children. Only when they made you list the SSNs of dependents in 1986 did children routinely get SSNs.

Wrong. I remember us having to do it. The technical reason was some stock in my name (probably anything that rates you a 1099 or its counterpart) and I definitely had the SSN when I registered for the draft in '66. And I'd guess there were a lot of people in my shoes, including Barry Soetaro, whose grandmother, the bank VP, probably made provisions for him.

As to SSNs being issued at birth, I recall the outrage over the announcement. They may have relented, but they did it.

bagoh20 said..."Has anything in history been so small, yet so important legally?

As Biden would say: "This is a big fuckin' deal."

That's why it won't go away, not racism or sour grapes. I think most people who care, do so because they care about it being right, and legal. They don't want the country they love being made a fool of, which is exactly what happened if they are right."

There is no doubt that I am right. The Very Purpose of A2S1C5 was to ensure that foreign influnce doesn't invade the CIC of the US Armed forces (FACT).If that's true, and it is certainly, than how could it be possible that one born a British subject is a natural born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? It's Impossible.

That's my whole point: the "original" birth certificate is MEANINGLESS, and the case of adopted people PROVES it.

No one demands the sekrit long form birth certificate because it is MEANINGLESS. Adopted people CAN'T EVEN SEE THEIRS. So how can it be legitimately demanded? Why isn't the only one the goverment accepts, the so called "short form", NOT GOOD ENOUGH?

No, it doesn't prove anything that adopted children can't get their original birth certificate.

Apples and oranges.

YOU and anyone else are not allowed to see the original birth certificate because your parents don't want to be know to YOU or anyone else. That is to protect THEM from YOU.

To be blunt: You are adopted and your parents are not to be known to you by THEIR choice.

If new state laws force Obama to conclusively prove it, and then he does, it proves to me he is a less than decent or respectable man and unworthy of his high office representing all the people. There is no good excuse at this point, not even a political one, which would be despicable anyway. The damage has been done in my mind. I believe under the same situation any recent Republican President would clear the air. I don't always like Republicans, but this seems like a distinctly Democrat type of behavior.

There's little point in reposting something you didn;t read the first time, but from SSA's website:

Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. But, it is a good idea to get a number when your child is born. You can apply for a Social Security number for your baby when you apply for your baby’s birth certificate.

It is not mandatory to get an SSN at birth, regardless of what you think you remember. If you think it was at one time and they changed the law, spend five minutes on Google and get the cite; and I thank you humbly for enriching my knowledge.

Until then, I think you are wrong and I at least have cited SOMETHING to prove it. Maybe you can do better.

It's not a false comparison. You are claiming that there should be some standard Obama must meet regarding his birth certificate, which millions of Americans, born citizens, would find legally impossible to meet.

That proves that your standard is legally illegitimate. Adopted people are just as much citizens as anyone else, whether or not that can show a "long form" birth certificate.

It is made up just for Obama and has no basis in law.

And I don't know why you keep saying "deal with it" regarding my adoption. I guess you assume I'm bitter about it or something, but the only reason I mention it here is because I happen to know from personal experience about adopted people's birth certificates. I know from personal experience that the Barack-Obama-only standard is nonsense. Millions of Americans would be unable to have jobs or hold office otherwise.

Gabriel Hanna: Your comments indicate you possess little information about the practices of the State of Hawaii Dept. of Health regarding official copies of one's birth certificate. I've lived here most of my life and my children and grandchildren were born here. The long-form birth certificate (including parents' names, occupation, race, home address as well as physician and hospital information) have always been what applicants received when requesting their own or their child's official stamped record of birth from the Department of Health.

I think Obama's birth certificate is just as valid as his parents' marriage certificate.

Hawaii is a politically corrupt, one party state. It is amusing that the same libs who used to scream about the government lying to us take the word of government officials -- not only without question but defending it in lockstep ranks -- when it suits their political goals.

(1) A certificate of live birth has the doctor's name, hospital name, etc.

(2) A certification of live birth is simply a record saying that some sort of birth record is on file - the record that is on file could be a CERTIFICATE of live birth, or it could be a written record made when a person swore that the baby was born in such-and-such location on such-and-such date.

(3) Obama has released a certification of live birth, not a certificate of live birth.

(4) Obama spent millions of dollars fighting lawsuits that would have required him to produce a certificate of live birth. He won. He has never produced such a certificate.

(5) The new governor of Hawaii said that when his people checked the records, what they found was a written record: "It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down." This suggests that the certification that Obama released is based on a written record as opposed to a certificate of live birth on record.

(6) Obama claims he was born at Kapiolani medical center.

(7) If he had indeed been born there, a certificate of live birth would have been generated and filed with the records department.

These are all uncontestable facts. What they lead to is the conclusion that there is no certificate of live birth on file for Obama, but instead there is a written record of his birth on file.

Which raises the legitimate question, what are the real circumstances of this man's birth such that there is only a written record on file of his birth and not a certificate of live birth as would be the case if he had been born at Kapiolani medical center as he claims?

Just to make my conclusions a little clearer: it is a fact that Obama released a certification of live birth. It is a fact that a certification can be based on either a certificate of live birth ("long form") or it can be based on a written record that a sworn statement was made that the baby was born on a certain date at a certain location.

That means that either Obama's certification is based on a certificate of live birth or it is based on a written record.

If it was based on a certification of live birth, why did Obama spend millions on lawsuits to avoid having to produce it? And why did the Hawaiian governor say that what was on file was a "written" record?

If it was based on a written record instead of a certificate of live birth, that would explain the governor's statement and it would explain why Obama fought those lawsuits: he had to because there is no certificate of live birth to produce. There is only a written record that someone swore he was born in Hawaii.

Which, again, raises the legitimate question: what are the real circumstances of this man's birth such that there is only a written record on file of his being born in Honolulu? He apparently wasn't born in a Hawaiian hospital or there would be more than a written record. What are the real facts of the circumstances of his birth that led to there only being a written record on file?

While this discussion of Mr Obama's birth is interesting, doesnt seem to me to be relevant unless the house wishes to file articles of impeachment--aint going to happen--and even it he isnt eligible, the question is moot unless articles of impeachment are filed.

Our jug eared president is what we got for the time being--now Jeremey took great offense to my use of jug eared and called me a racist prick--but I must have missed the memo where talking about big ears are racist--I mean Obama's ear pale in comparison to Mr Lincoln's--oh well--

Under the doctrine of common-law marriage, you are married if you have lived together as husband and wife. You have to get divorced if you want to get married again. I have no idea if Hawaii is a common-law marriage state. If it is, that would explain why there is no marriage record, but there is a divorce record.

Our jug eared president is what we got for the time being--now Jeremey took great offense to my use of jug eared and called me a racist prick--but I must have missed the memo where talking about big ears are racist--I mean Obama's ear pale in comparison to Mr Lincoln's--oh well--

The current POTUS seems in over his head…then nation is in serious trouble…and we are debating how one gets a birth announcement in HI, the in’s and out’s of securing a SS Card…and the manner by which SSN’s are issued.

All I can can say is let me outta here, these here white folkz is crazeee!

Michael "I just heard our president speak on his solution to the debt crisis. He was not born in Hawaii as anyone with a brain can tell. He was born on fucking mars."

Oh, thanks Mr. Teabagger.

There's nothing like an honest, fresh and objective point of view coming from some right wing fruitcake who voted for little Georgie...twice...and of course, who is merely sucking up to the rest of the wingnut pack who worship The Queen and her loyal sidekick, Needy.

I'll lay odds his speech will be well receieved by a majority of Americans, and even some of the jerks you voted for.

ah Jeremy--been reading my google info huh? nahh--I enjoyed the head start administrator position--we did a lot for hispanics in the Yakima valley--had nothing to do with politics--had to do with what was right

Now--link me to your accomplishments and I would be glad to critique them--but you havent got the gots because you are a nobody whose only raison d'etre (thats french BTW) is posting drivel on blogs

Roger "ah Jeremy--been reading my google info huh? nahh--I enjoyed the head start administrator position--we did a lot for hispanics in the Yakima valley--had nothing to do with politics--had to do with what was right"

Head Start had and has nothing to do with politics...how about that nasty "socialism" thingie you and others here whine and bitch about endlessly??

An organization initiated by LBJ and his war on poverty and an important part of his "Great Society...that...

...provides all kinds of services relating to education, homeless kids, and of course many "social" health services much like those provided by Planned Parenthood to women...but not political?

So when you worked for them it related to "what was right"...but now...is it nothing more than a part of that "socialistic" agenda being pushed by a president you criticize at every turn?

Jeremy--here's the difference between you and me--I stand behind my record--you are a cipher who hasnt the guts to say what you have done--

I am more than happy to let readers who want to follow up on what I have done make judgments--you are just a craven little dipshit who hasnt got the courage to stand on what if any accomplishments you have

Roger "Jeremy--here's the difference between you and me--I stand behind my record--you are a cipher who hasnt the guts to say what you have done--"

I have no problem telling people about what I've done with my life. I've owned and operated a number of successful businesses, served as the national marketing and sales director for a few, optioned material to production companies, and still do consulting work for a few companies.

But based on much of the insanity posted here by a number of the teabaggers I don't feel comfotable allowing them access to anything relating to me or my family's personal life.

I merely mentioned the fact that I find it rather bizarre that someone who served in your capacity with Head Start, and I assume felt good about the work he was doing for those in need, would become such a hard core teabagging fool.